The Downside of Having an Open Discussion

"Let's just have an open discussion." This is a well-intentioned statement that we hear a lot in teams. 

There are a couple ways it could go wrong, though.

Let’s start with this: what do we even mean by 'open'? The intent of calling an open discussion “open” is to encourage participants to share openly. But it also tends to refer to the process, or way the forum is conducted, like 'open mike,' and there’s rarely full openness in what is shared.

Someone will Dominate

As much as groups want to allow for openness to let what needs to be said get said, unless there is a skilled facilitator holding the forum, someone, or a few people, often dominate the conversation.

In the community group discussion I participated in a while back this was definitely the case. There were more than 35 people coming together to navigate COVID protocols — not an easy conversation. One person kept reiterating and elaborating on their views. We of course hadn't heard from everyone and didn't have a good sense of where the majority of the group stood on the issue. It’s not practical, efficient or necessary to hear repeated thoughts from one person and no thoughts from others. And the dark side I mentioned is that it unfairly gives that person an outsized voice.

Open Discussion Can be Stressful

In that community meeting, I did not share my opinion. Later when I thought about why, I realized that it was because I didn't trust that it would matter in the end. A bit of structure, or process, helps the group members understand how to participate and how their participation will contribute to the meeting’s goals.

And if I had really wanted to share my opinion, I would have been hanging on my seat the entire time trying to choose the right moment to grab the mic. #stressful

Further, the more just a few people dominate, the more the silent participants breed skepticism that the conversation is worth their time.

Transparent opinions are more likely to be voiced when there is built-in structure. Not so much structure that people feel stifled, but just enough structure that there is order and opportunity to share one’s opinion constructively. This could be done with the many interactive tools that exist for online meetings, or using a clear turn-taking approach like council. 

The Point

As leaders, part of our job is to find the nexus where structure and freedom are symbiotically supportive of each other. If you find yourself leaning toward 'open discussion' ask yourself why. If you truly want a candid forum, build in some transparent mechanisms for interaction that will elicit true openness. It's not just going to happen by declaring that the conversation will be an open discussion.